Tully & Anor, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2270 (16 March 2006)

Tully & Anor, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2270 (16 March 2006)

The trial judge erred in admitting all previous convictions for dishonesty to prove propensity, as only those similar to the offence charged (robbery and joint enterprise) had sufficient probative value. However, the evidence against the appellants was strong and the convictions for robbery would have been properly admitted. The error did not render the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 2270
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Stephen Tully; Appellant: Kevin Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence (Wood) allowed in part
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Admissibility of Previous Convictions, Robbery, Joint Enterprise, Breach of ASBO, Resisting Arrest, Fair Trial, Hearsay Evidence
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Propensity Admissibility of Previous Convictions Robbery Joint Enterprise Breach of ASBO Resisting Arrest +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Stephen Tully

Appellant

Kevin Wood

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting a wide range of previous convictions as evidence of propensity under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the admission of such evidence rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the sentence for breach of ASBO was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in admitting all previous convictions for dishonesty to prove propensity, as only those similar to the offence charged (robbery and joint enterprise) had sufficient probative value. However, the evidence against the appellants was strong and the convictions for robbery would have been properly admitted. The error did not render the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence (Wood) allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions upheld for both appellants
  • Wood's sentence for breach of ASBO reduced from nine months to three months, to run consecutive to the four-year sentence for robbery